> Felado : [Canada]> I agree with everything Andras Kornai wrote except the following.>> >Communism, on the other hand, treats no pre-existing culture or tradition> >as valuable, and of course the anti-religious thrust of communist ideology> >is very explicit. Its central tenet is the collective ownership of the> >means of production -- a dream that looks increasingly unrealistic.>> Yes, the dream looks unrealistic today. But tomorrow is another day.
Well, we can agree to disagree on that one. Let me try an other track, see
what you think. As far as I can see, "production" as Marx meant it, that is,
production of material goods, is becoming increasingly automated, and I don't
care too much whether these factories are owned by some stinking rich
capitalist whose wealth is redistributed by taxation or by some committee of
faceless buerocrats who pretend to have the welfare of all citizens in their
hearts. To the extent I care I prefer the stinking rich capitalist to do the
job, but ultimately the managerial class used by one is not so different from
the managerial class used by the other. My feeling is that the whole issue is
becoming increasingly moot, as we are shifting from a material goods based to
an information-based economy. At this point the primary means of production is
in your head, and nobody owns it but you. Morover, being one of these
information-producing wage slaves, I strongly resent the idea of anybody
trying to collectivize my billions and billions of neurons.
Andra1s Kornai

Dear Colleagues,
If you would want to learn more about the Roma value system, culture and what
it is like to be a Rome, please read: "Bury Me Standing" (The Gypsies and
Their Journey) by Isabel Fonseca
Best regards: Bela Liptak

Dear Colleagues,
If you would want to learn more about the Roma value system, culture and what
it is like to be a Rome, please read: "Bury Me Standing" (The Gypsies and
Their Journey) by Isabel Fonseca
Best regards: Bela Liptak

Andras Kornai wrote:
>My feeling is that the whole issue is becoming>increasingly moot, as we are shifting from a material goods based to>an information-based economy. At this point the primary means of production>is in your head, and nobody owns it but you. Morover, being one of these>information-producing wage slaves, I strongly resent the idea of anybody>trying to collectivize my billions and billions of neurons.
Don't be so quick to delude yourself, Andras. White and pink collar workers
thought, and perhaps still think, that they are a step above blue collar
workers. Today, information-producing 'wage slaves' think that they are
above, or different from, other workers/producers. This kind of thinking
suits the 'owners of the means of production' just fine. They don't have to
'divide and conquer' because the workers, or, as you say, 'wage slaves' do
the division themselves. You know that oppression works when the oppressed
oppress themselves. You know that censorship is working when people censor
themselves. I still think that the important issue is not what, or how you
produce, but who owns the means of that production.
And please don't worry about someone trying to collectivize billions and
billions of your neurons. That won't be necessary. Someone may already
have flipped a few switches in your control panel and that's all that's
necessary to control you. Or me, for that matter.
Information-producing wage slaves of the world unite! You have nothing to
lose but your keyboards!! ;-)
Joe Szalai

Joe Szalai should have quoted his whole paragraph:
>In English, the word 'gouge' also means 'a fraud, a cheat, an imposter'.>Maybe Rebecca can tell us if 'gouge' and 'gadj' are pronounced the same way.>And if they are, I wonder if the slang meaning of 'gouge' is possibly from>the Romani 'gadj'. Once again my Webster's dictionary gives the slang>meaning of gouge but not its origin.
Basically, he is asking whether etymologically the slang meaning of "gouge"
has anything to do with the Roma word of "gadj." This is a question which
doesn't make a whole lot of sense for anyone who knows anything whatsoever
about etymology. It is quite obvious, IMHO, that the slang meaning of "gouge"
comes exactly from the same root as the traditional meaning of the word.
Eva Balogh

Joe Szalai wrote:
>Janos Zsargo wrote:>>>>would allow anyone to live in my appartment who paid the rent, didn't>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^>>>wreck the place, and allowed me eight hours of quiet at night.> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^>>>Based on the underlined requirements one can say you do not accept>>'significant differences'.>>I'm not sure what you're trying to get at, Janos. Perhaps it might help if>I put quotation marks around 'accept' and removed them from 'significant>differences'. For example, I'll state that I'm not a religious person but I>'accept' those who are. If I had a place to rent, I'd rent regardless of>race, colour, religion, etc. Now, if someone I rented to had a religious>belief and they had to sing and dance at three in the morning, and as a>result I would be deprived of my sleep, then yes, that would be a>significant difference and I would cease to rent to them. Does that make me>intolerant? I still 'accept' their religion but I don't want them to>practice it in my house because it cuts into my sleeping time. On the other>hand, if I was always working the night shift, I really wouldn't care if>they sang and danced all night as long as there was quiet when I got home to>sleep. All this may not be an ideal situation or example but it will have>to do. If you still want to maintain that I do not accept 'significant>differences', you may do so.
I have the feeling that you simple do not want to understand it. Most of
the intolerance is based on such simple feelings like "I do not like the
smell of their food..", "I do not like the way, how they threat others/olders
/females...","I do not like the mess they live in.." and so on, and than
generalized to all member of that ethnic/religious/etc group. I just wanted
to point out that your simple requirements are good starting point for
intolerance.
For example, let's assume you had that noisy religious group in your apartment.
You somehow kicked them out and now you are fine. Next they another group of
people want to rent your apartment, they look and behave exactly like the
previous one. So, what are you going to do? Don't tell me that you would not
be precautious! Can these people say they were discriminated because of their
religion? Don't worry they would, at least in the US.
You gave a nice example anyway, that you know well what intolerance is or
may be not but you practice it. Your Christmas present to us was:
>Date: Mon, 25 Dec 1995 09:12:33 -0500
^^^^^^!!
>From: Joe Szalai >>Subject: Something to Muse About>To: Multiple recipients of list HUNGARY >>>The birth of a boy who grows up to think he's God is an everyday event!!>>Joe Szalai
This means you have not even a clue about what tolerance and PC is or
you enjoy to make ugly provocations.
Do not misunderstand me, I do not care what is your religious beliefs
or your opinion about any religion. Just the timing, and the publicity
that was "perfect". You made it clear that your words about tolerance
are not more than empty slogans.
Janos

Yesterday I wrote that I wasn't sure what Janos Zsargo was getting at.
Today I have a good idea. He wanted to pin me down as an intolerant person
just because I wouldn't rent to someone who deprived me of my sleep at
night. And from that act alone he was able to deduce that other, more
sinister, acts of racism, intolerance, sexism, ageism and hatred would
follow. In his own words he says that he
>just wanted to point out that your (my) simple requirements are good>starting point for intolerance.
My simple requirements turned out to be a good starting point for Zsargo ur
to play "whose the most tolerant writer/reader of the Hungary list". Janos
Zsargo may as well take his game home because I'm not interested in playing
that particular game. If he's interested in a good, spirited debate about
issues that may interest the readers of this list, great. I just hope that
he can be challenged without him denigrating his opponents. Certainly his
comments about my earlier post today would indicate that he is not.
He thinks that just because today is the 25th of December I shouldn't be
asking people to think about certain things. Well, Zsargo ur may think that
this day is special in some way. I don't. Nor will I refrain from asking
or saying things just because a lot of people agree with him. Thank God we
live in a democray and not a theocracy!
Joe Szalai